Should Animal Testing Be Banned Essay

Should Animal Testing Be Banned Essay

Argumentative Essay

Humans and animals: both beings that feel pain and have a soul. What separates humans and animals that makes animals subject to, often deathly, laboratory testing? Activists around the world have used the same basic concept to plead their cause for years. Many countries and brands have already banned cosmetic animal testing, but the US has yet to make laws to eliminate it. Although the results of medical animal testing save thousands of lives every year, cosmetic animal testing should be banned because there are better alternatives, it is inhumane and scientifically unreliable.

There are two different sectors of animal testing; cosmetic and medical. Animals such as rabbits and mice are used to determine if the products and medicines we use are safe for our skin, and bodies and if they irritate certain allergies. Soaps, makeup, creams, etc. are examples of products that are roughly rubbed or dropped into the eyes of helpless animals. In pictures you can see the hard truth behind products we use every day; animals with their eyes bleeding that often end up dying. Medicine is another area of animal testing. Most of the FDA-approved drugs on the market go through a set of tests before they are released for human use. Nearly every significant medical breakthrough in the past century is thanks to animal testing.

Many major cosmetics brands such as Lush, Dove, and Fenty Beauty have turned away from animal testing, which means it is possible for every brand to do. Scientists have created alternatives that yield the same result, and often with better odds. SkinEthic is one example of a sort of ‘fake skin’ model that has been created and helps companies get the same answers about the products they are searching for. These skin models are also reusable, whereas an animal can only be used once. Handling the animals is also expensive and a burden to coordinate. There are also studies that can be done with real human cells and tissues, and complex computer research that is also reliable. Human volunteers are often an option as well. In many common commercials, you see people being asked to try soaps and shampoos to compare their quality. This sort of test also happens behind closed doors for potential products. Because of modern technology and human participation, a world without animal testing is truly within our reach.

There is really no good argument against the statement that animal testing is inhumane. Chemicals are dripped into the animal’s eyes and often result in major side effects such as death, going blind, or losing their hearing. Creams and lotions are rubbed, and not gently, into their eyes as well. Sometimes their skin is shaved in order to perform these irritation tests. These animals are given no pain relief even though they are made of pain-sensing receptors extremely similar to those of humans. This is all for the purpose of makeup and cosmetic products, nothing that has groundbreaking effects on the human world.

A relatively unknown fact about animal testing in medicine is how unreliable it actually is. Upwards of ninety percent of drugs approved for testing in humans by animal research are not approved for human use. Every year millions of hospital visits are the result of some of the lethal adverse effects in humans caused by drugs that have been approved. Hundreds of thousands of these hospital visits are ended in fatalities. These drugs end up being removed from the shelves, but most of the time there has already been significant amounts of damage done. There are many saga stories of drugs being released that end up causing major problems such as birth defects. All of these drugs go through extensive animal testing and are deemed safe for humans. It is expensive to go through the process of handling the animals, and it sometimes ends up hurting humans. Where is the line?

Unreliability is often common in cosmetic animal testing as well. Less than a fourth of cosmetics tested to give accurate data about human side effects they are being tested to show. It is also interesting to know that alternatives to animal testing are around eighty percent effective. There is hard evidence to prove that not only are the alternatives much more humane, but they are also more accurate.

There is a plentiful amount of cosmetic brands that have made the switch for the better. In the past few years, social media has brought attention to the matter and helped influence many companies to make the change. Among celebrities, it is sort of ‘trendy’ to promote brands that do not use animal testing. When a celebrity is endorsing a product via Instagram or Twitter it is common to see them emphasize the fact that the product is free of animal testing in order to support the cause. Along with brands, even many countries have banned animal testing. Countries like Europe prosper with no harm done to innocent animals. The US has been slow to make any laws against it. There are a few in place, but they only contain petty restrictions that often end up being violated regardless.

Although a respectable amount of countries and brands have supposedly banned animal testing worldwide, there are many loopholes in the system that make this statement flawed. You may purchase a mascara in a cruelty-free country such as Europe, but this purchase will often support animal testing of the same product in other parts of the world such as China. In China animal testing is required in order for the product to end up on shelves, so the same brand that sells cruelty-free products in one country will often still sell their products in countries where animal testing is mandatory. Some brands remain consistent and do not sell to these markets, but their products are often illegally purchased and resold. There is little companies can do about this, but they have pressed for conditions to change. In a country with size like China, any change that is made has a huge impact immediately. Many bigger companies may soil their cruelty-free practices by selling in countries where animal testing is required, but we can look to those that remain faithful to their values to set an example worldwide.

Organizations like PETA and Cruelty-Free International encourage everyone to take a stand against animal testing. By boycotting brands that are not 100% cruelty-free and raising your voice against them, they claim you are helping the cause. LUSH cosmetics once did a very controversial and extreme display: they hired some actors to display what it is like behind closed laboratory doors. The display was graphic and hard to watch. Although it achieved its goal of bringing attention to the matter, many were left bothered by the experiment and considered it too extreme. Organizations orchestrate peaceful protests more often than extreme ones. It is common to see pictures in the news of these events. Protestors make signs, and sometimes bring animals to rally along with them. Together they shout chants and pass out flyers to people passing by.

Our country is full of people who love their pets and would do anything for them, but many of these people do not realize that some of the products they use every day harm animals just like the ones they love. Technological alternatives are too advanced and trustworthy to ignore; it is time the US outlaws cosmetic animal testing for good.

Scientific Validity in Animal Testing: An Examination of Perspectives

Scientific Validity in Animal Testing: An Examination of Perspectives

Introduction

Each year many innocent worldwide animals are taken away from their natural habitats. Animals are taken away by force to be put into laboratories to be tested on many company products, from medication to cosmetics, causing animals pain, suffering, distress, or lasting harm. This has been around for centuries.

Body

The Ethical Dilemma of Animal Testing

In the late nineteenth century, the number of animals that were used in tests increased forward with the number of tests. Animal testing causes a lot of pain, and it’s given to animals to improve human lives should be rejected. For the benefits, it is something over the suffering that the animals should not have to go through, and it is not so safe. The article The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt” by Pat Dutt and Jonathan Latham and the documentary “Bye, Bye guinea pig” from Java film exclusive both talk about how animals are being tested for hundreds of thousands of consumer products. However, the documentary uses a strong emotional appeal that makes the subject more persuasive.

Scientific Validity in Question

The article “The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt” by Pat Dutt and Jonathan Latham was published in 2013. In this article, the authors argue that not all animal testing is safe; according to Kristie Sullivan, Director of Regulatory Testing Issues at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, “about 90% of all pharmaceuticals tested for safety in animals fail to reach the market, or are quickly pulled from the market”. Everyday products, from soft drinks and baby foods to paints, gardening products, cosmetics, and shampoos, contain numerous synthetic chemicals such as dyes, active ingredients, or contaminants. Official assurances of the safety of these chemicals are based on animal experiments that use rabbits, mice, rats, and dogs. But new results from a consortium of researchers published in the Proceedings of the National Academy say it may be worthless.

The author Jonathan Latham argues that “medical failures affect the unwell, chemical toxins have potential repercussions for everyone.” The main point is if animals are not useful predictors of important disease responses in humans, it is unlikely they are useful as test subjects for toxicological safety. The lack of accordance in chemicals found in certain products, incorporated into food, and otherwise spread throughout the environment is untested. “We are not protecting humans,” says Pat Dutt, “even a National Academy study agrees that many toxicological tests are not human-relevant.”

Conclusion

In the documentary “Bye Bye Guinea, Pig” by the filmmaker Aude Favre, Kanopy was published in 2016. In the documentary, it argues that “animals deserve more than being tortured in labs.” Animals are being tested by so many products before humans get to use the products, which is not a great thing for animals. In order to see if a product works or if it causes some kind of reaction, animals are the first ones to experience the effects. The documentary attempts to convince the audience that animal testing is dangerous and not safe for all animals. The thesis of this is to stop animals from being tested.

“In 2013, a European law banned the use of animal testing products”. By the filmmaker Aude Favre, Kanopy was published in 2016. Away from the ethical issues of the purpose exposing physical pain can form suffering in large numbers of creatures. Animal tests provide little understanding of how chemicals behave in the body and, in many cases, do not think about the real world of human reactions. As in health, scientists are questioning the relevance of research for human diseases in the laboratory by creating symptoms in other animal species.

References

  1. Dutt, P., & Latham, J. (2013). The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt. Independent Science News.
  2. Favre, A. (Director). (2016). Bye Bye Guinea Pig [Documentary]. Kanopy.

Animal Testing in the Pursuit of Scientific Knowledge

Animal Testing in the Pursuit of Scientific Knowledge

Introduction

Unnatural and/or painful situations are not ethical in the pursuit of the human condition if you ask PETA. But in order to test medicines or other practices, we need test subjects. We can’t always test things on humans as they did to many people back in the day.

Body

The Ethical Predicament

This may be a tough decision to make, but testing has to be done for humanity to continue to grow and thrive. “The balancing process is complicated, on the one hand, by a plurality of views on our duties towards animals, and on the other hand by more recent discussions on uncertainty in the probability of reaching the final aim of the research and problems of translational failure,” (Meijboom, Kostrzewa, & Leenaars, 2020).

The Moral Dilemma

Testing on animals is necessary. In recent decades, scientists have found it to be more proficient at using rats and mice in various surgeries, drug trials, and observations as opposed to humans. It has been found that without animal research, we would diminish as a race. “ An immediate end to animal research in the U.S. would be a death sentence for millions of people around the world,” she told Newsweek,” (Ericson, 2014).

Various alternatives to animal testing have been proposed in recent decades to outline great concerns and drawbacks associated with animal experiments. Often times experiments on animals have proved to cause unnatural and painful situations (Doke & Dhawale, 2013). It is like taking your pet to the cat or dog and making them go thru pain for science. You would immediately say no. However, if I knew that it would save my child from disease and or help find a cure, I would rethink that decision without a second. No one wants to be that person that suggests a necessary evil. The outcomes of these dreadful tests and experiments have saved many lives.

Alternative Approaches and Progress

Latvia is still experiencing one of the highest human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) mortality rates in the European Union, and HIV is the sixth leading cause of death among young adults (15-39) in the country. The aim of the study was to determine the years of potential life lost (YPPL) as an indicator of premature mortality and the associated factors among people living with HIV in Latvia. Data from the National Registry of HIV?AID Cases were used for the time period 1991-2010. (Karnite, Brigis, & Uuskula, 2012)

HIV testing has come a long way. We see people living healthy lives with the assistance of modern-day science and experiments. “Animal models offer obvious advantages in the study of HIV/AIDS, allowing for a more invasive investigation of the disease and for preclinical testing of drugs and vaccines.” (Hatziioannou & Evans, 2012)

Conclusion

In conclusion, I do not think it is ethical to subject animals to unnatural and/or painful situations in the pursuit of knowledge about the human condition. However, it is a necessary evil. We are growing as a population, and new viruses and diseases are surfacing daily. Even though these animals should not be harmed intentionally. Science has a need for testing and assurance.

References

  1. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S.C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. 23, 223-229. doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002
  2. Ericson, J. (2014, February 21). John Ericson. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/authors/john-ericson
    Hatziioannou, T., & Evans, D. T. (2012). Animal models for HIV/AIDS research. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 10(12), 852–867. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2911
  3. Karnite, A., Brigis, G., & Uuskula, A. (2012). Years of potential life lost due to HIV infection and associated factors based on national HIV surveillance data in Latvia, 1991–2010. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 45(2), 140–146. doi:10.3109/00365548.2012.717710
  4. Meijboom, F. L. B., Kostrzewa, E., & Leenaars, C. H. C. (2020). Joining forces: the need to combine science and ethics to address problems of validity and translation in neuropsychiatry research using animal models.
  5. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 15(1). doi:10.1186/s13010-019-0085-4

The Controversy of Animal Testing: Ethical Considerations

The Controversy of Animal Testing: Ethical Considerations

Introduction

Many laboratories are essential in finding information. Sometimes experts study by operating prescription medicines. Consequently, lives have gone down. An example of a horrible effect is considered a strange disease. Humans and living species are almost the same; however, they don’t react in their manners but are observed to be animals, too.

Body

Ethical Concerns and Scientific Progress

Experimentations that can be dangerous and harmful to animals should conduct inside a secure environment along with reliable researchers by following instructions. Also, researchers should put nonliving things to learn and further investigate. In reducing experimentations, researchers have been protecting animals by encouraging non-animal testing to be used to contribute to curing ​​​diseases and using microchips as useful material for ​​​​experimentation options.

Animals are useful in treatments to find diseases such as HIV, cancer and vaccines. Animals help scientists to create new medicines and understand human health. Drugs have been used on humans for unnecessary reasons. It is considered acceptable that gives volunteers ‘informed’ consent. Under progress, a lot of drugs are created to make an obvious variation beyond those from existing drugs. It is easy to confirm that telling people to risk their life in order to initiate new drug treatments for a condition in which they are suffering from pain and treatments that are lacking drugs. When the drug is visualized, it receives no specific benefits to the subjects because they are healthy people that are trying a copy of an existing drug. Producers hope that animal testing will show how a given drug will affect humans.

Scientific Necessity and Alternatives

Between 70-75 percent of animal research, these drugs have been recommended by the Food and Drug Administration based on promising results, but it has been proven that it is unsafe for human beings. According to the website ‘PETA,’ it says that we didn’t use drugs on animals; we would have to use experiments on people. The reason why is that the experiments on animals are not able to pass further investigations, and they will be tested on humans, which will not go in the right direction.

The National Institute of Health has been observing that animal testing on drugs is considered to be safe and necessary, but they fail people because they are threatening. For humans, a slight percentage of drugs have been approved, but the rest ended up being rebranded because of the side effects that were seen in animal testing.

The types of body effects are Vioxx, Phenactin, and Oralfelx. Markets need indication by getting replaced. It causes harmful reactions killing 100,000 beings each year and is known as the fourth largest killer. Without animals, our species will create a greater possible goal for health.

Balancing Human Welfare and Animal Well-Being

However, living creatures are evolving in ineffective forms. After causes, experiments result in deaths such as painful relief. People let species be shocked, burned, famished, restrained, and have brain conditions. Amphibians and rodents are replaced and not protected by federal law. Researchers don’t have to leave them to suffer.

For people, NAVS has shown that more gentle experimentations are safe, and it would replace all animal use with non-living materials. NAVS evaluates living animal protection laws which will communicate to contact their staff by supporting supporters by speaking up for what is right for animals. With applying laws, government agencies must be in charge of ensuring regulations could give prescriptions and make people help them or require scientists to provide more data on animals to see how they are using them. To expand its coverage, NAVS has continued to study by working to stop animal learning.

Inaccurate calculations using experimentations experienced at a high rate. Described as human with horrible, cases have proved genetics disallow organisms from seeing medicines. Besides humans, ineffective versions such as treatment reactions will result in serious outcomes for us. Scientists taught experimentation shows unnecessary choices. With unsafe laboratories, our species expressed this is horrible, wasting their lives. Natural learners possessed managing human resources with more resources than nonhuman experiments.

Conclusion

Besides our species, living organisms are hardly a good reference. Along with learning, scientists will have a chance to become persistent patients. It is not a lot of money, and researchers will initiate new technologies to make it an approachable experiment. Analysts are learning to build stamp organs to attempt drugs that will have a greater impact. Also, researchers have been evaluating such as bug bites, rashes, freckles, and many particles.

References

  1. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23, 223-229. doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002
  2. Ericson, J. (2014, February 21). John Ericson. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/authors/john-ericson
  3. Hatziioannou, T., & Evans, D. T. (2012). Animal models for HIV/AIDS research. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 10(12), 852–867. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2911